Frankly, I think all you folks that think everything is an illusion are batshit crazy. It's a fun game to play with words but doesn't quite account for things like matter.

That ^^^^^ said with all the kindness in the universe, of course.

Even a thought about what seems to be is part of the coming and going in the isness. The isness is where it all seems to be happening. I don't know, call me batshit crazy. Me? ...Just one of those things. Just one of those crazy flings. One of those bells that now and then rings. Just one of those things.

Belief in matter is acceptable, until it is questioned. If I believe I am the knowing of things, is this not to accept limitation? I know it, goddamn it! Do, I, Mr. Jones? The questions carry more power than the answers. The answers seem to change with the perspectives. Does not it all rest within some unchanging no-thingness?

I matter. Ha ha.

...what is my name? Who am I? Am I not that?

You Sir, are Dr. Logs, who cuts wood and carries water.

When I seem to be the doing, yes. This too is watched, but from where?

You want the right words? So sorry. Let the words pass through, and go their way. You just be here, as you are, indefinable, seeing it all as if clouds passing by.

"Yeah, but that won't put food on the table, whether it exists or not."

And here we see how the "person" is pretty much incapable of simplicity, being all caught up in what was and what could be. Am I only some story about some person and his remembered experiences and projected outcomes?

The truth is simple. The seeker of truth is complex.

~Mooji

...what is my name? Who am I? Am I not that?

You Sir, are Dr. Logs, who cuts wood and carries water.

but he doesn't. he only thinks he does. if he is he at all. it's all very complicated :)

Yes, the doer is a product of thought. What's done can be held in the identification with a thought of, "I am this," but this identification too is but a thought. My body is a 'he,' but I am not that. I have a car, and I am not that either. I cannot be what I have, or don't have. I have perceptions of all sorts, and these are not me. What can I be?

Of course. Most materialist generalities work both ways. When A is the proof of B, B becomes the proof of A (this was borrowed from Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary).

GRAVITATION, n.

The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportional to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another. This is a lovely and edifying illustration of how science, having made A the proof of B, makes B the proof of A.

Science might say that about big ass blobs, but my seemingly so meat puppet would not necessarily agree. This meat puppet proffers a universe where if a massive seeming something is actually generating a gravity field, it will repel another likewise generated gravity field, because gravity is an electrostatic field with its negative electric pole outward and its positive pole at its heart, and their like poles will repel.

This is what we old submareeners lovingly call, "horse cock." Horse cock sandwiches, anyone?

Frankly if you ask any honest scientist what any of the forces are (Gravitation, Magnetism, Electrostatic, Weak/Strong atomic forces) they will (eventually) tell you they do not know what the "are", only how they interact with other "things". And if they are really honest, then they will tell you that our force "model" is just that. A model that works pretty well for us to use for such things as shooting rockets into space, or building a toaster.

So the truth becomes that these models are nothing much different (epistemologically) than the "models" that ancient Alchemists used of planetary influences, etc. to describe what was going on in their retorts and crucibles. The truth is, the hard sciences of today, owe pretty much their entire existence to Alchemy.

Except for the fact that today's science had itself eviscerated of all elements of "Magick" that Alchemy had. That was a tragedy in my view.

However, as your esteemed scientist-philosopher Kastrup (and many others like Rupert Sheldrake) have noted, that science has hit the point where it cannot really go any further with its sterile models, and must reintegrate the magick it lost back in the Renascence. I like that Kastrup mentions Dr. Sheldrake and his morphogenic fields in the first video. Alchemy always embraced the notion of these fields, and in fact attempted to manipulate them. That is a lost technology we really need to find again!

Here again we see the duality of existence - the harmonious existence of the Dual that permeates all existence, and that followers of the Hermetic tradition such as myself, try to see within and without.... As above, so as below.

I do not deny that the ultimate may have been One, but it got lonely, and so now.... there is Two.

Here Bernardo's spiritual rubber meets the road. I just found this video, and toward the end of it I could see and hear him speaking from his own transcendence, where his eyes light up and the wordlessness of the message was made completely real, though the narrative still isn't going to be it.